571–580 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. I just read the page. It's about a famous concept that came from a book written by a Jewish Marxist who fled Nazi Germany. he wrote it in Paris in 1935 as the Nuremberg Laws were passed. Killed himself in 1940 trying to escape the Gestapo. He's not hiding any of it. Masquerade is a bit rich.
The blatant dumpty astroturfers are getting annoying, aren't they?
This is so cool. For instance the asset FBI SEPTEMBER 2023 SIGHTING - COMPOSITE SKETCH indicated that “Actual site photo with FBI Lab rendered graphic overlay depicting corroborating eyewitness reports from September 2023 of an apparent ellipsoid bronze metallic object materializing out of a bright light in the sky, 130-195 feet in length, and disappearing instantaneously.” https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1…
>I wonder if there’s satellite imagery of this event, or maybe if in the near future we’ll have greater satellite coverage so we can corroborate these claims with imagery. The more cameras we have (in everyone's pocket, in the streets, in the sky), the less "sightings" we have (of UFO and cryptids). Tells you something.
It's the modern day equivalent of Big Foot or Nessie and its relevance will wither away with the current generations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No the interpretation is that the more we could prove it if real, the less we do Sailors saw mermaids all the time too, I don't think they're all hiding under a rock since we invented the camera
sailors also reported seeing kraken as well, they were eventually proven right with the giant squid.
It is all very highly entertaining.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
TDS = Trump Devotion Syndrome.
> it is absolutely true that some people’s brains have straight up broken by his antics.
Of course this ridiculous hyperbole is false and intellectually dishonest, and
> It’s the other people who are bad and wrong. You aren’t wrong about anything; and they’re wrong about everything.
is quite some projection and is a non sequitur to the comment this guy was responding to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some reason, unlike most other commenters, yours doesn’t present the downvote button. I thought this might be a privilege of very high karma like other downvote-missing commenters i see sparsely lower down, but your karma is lower than mine and I get downvoted frequently enough. I’d like to understand HN’s community management functions better.
Could it just be the comment is too old? IIRC, comments that are over ~24h old can no longer be downvoted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It used to be named the Department of War No, it didn't. For a few years before it was the Department of Defense it was the National Military Establishment (with an initialism with a very unfortunate pronunciation given its function) and before that it didn't exist at all. Now, before the National Military Establishment was formed to unify the nations military bureaucracy, there were two separate cabinet level depa…
There are technicalities around all of this yes, but we used to have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. Now we have a Department of War with multiple branches of the military under it. It's only named by executive order, which in practice is almost indistinguishable outside of some paperwork that few people will ever see. It's largely the spirit of the thing and the shift in communic…
No, we didn't. When the Department of War existed, it had exactly one branch under it, the Army. The Navy (including the Marine Corps)—as well as, in time of war only, the Coast Guard—was under the Department of the Navy, which was a separate cabinet level department.
When the US Army Air Forces, which were not a separate branch of the military, was turned into the US Air Force, which was a separate branch—by the National Security Act of 1947—the Department of War was abolished, and replaced with the Department of the Army (which had only the Army under it, just as the old Department of War had) and the Department of the Air Force (which had only the brand new Air Force under it.) There was never was Department of War with more than one branch under it.
This was also the same time that the National Military Establishment, headed by the Secretary of Defense, was created to provide unified structure within which the three military departments (Army, Air Force, and Navy) were embedded (but not, initially, actually subordinated: all three service secretaries were still cabinet-level officers.)
Two years later, amendments were passed to the National Security Act of 1947 which renamed the NME to the Department of Defense, and formally subordinated the service secretaries and their associated departments to the Secretary and Department of Defense, and, but for some minor changes like the creation of the Space Force as a separate branch within the Department of the Air Force, remains the structure in law today.
The only cabinet-level departments that ever had multiple branches of the military under them were the Department of Navy and the Department of Defense. (The Department of the Air Force, as noted in the preceding paragraph, has for the last few years also had multiple branches, but did not in the brief time it was a cabinet level department.) The Department of War, and the Department of the Army that replaced it a (both as cabinet level departments and when the latter was a subcabinet department) have only ever had the Army.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not aware of any similar claims. I thought the other two interstellar objects were not anomalous.
You can read a summary on his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb#Claims_about_alien_li...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extraterrestrial intelligence existing somewhere in the universe, and extraterrestrial life visiting Earth are two distinct things, and the former is vastly more probable than the latter.
Yes, and to bring it back to GP's point, if someone comes telling you they just saw a flying saucer rise on a big chem trail above the flat earth's horizon, then you perhaps don't take their next claim all too serious.